Legal Headline: Recruitment process commencing before enforcement of new legislation is protected under repeal and savings provisions.

The Director of Higher Education granted permission on 04.08.2023 and 08.08.2023 to fill 22 Assistant Professor posts at Digamber Jain Mahavidyalaya, a minority institution.

Advertisements were published on 08.08.2023 and 12.08.2023.

Subsequently, the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 ("Act, 2023") was notified on 21.08.2023.

Following an earlier round of litigation where the High Court set aside contradictory government orders, the Principal Secretary (Higher Education) issued an order on 21.04.2025 holding that since the advertisement predated the Act, 2023, the old procedure remained valid.

Sunil Kumar Jain challenged this order, leading to an interim stay that halted salaries and approvals for selected candidates; the selected candidates and the Committee of Management filed cross-petitions against the subsequent stay orders.

1. Whether the recruitment process is deemed to have commenced upon the publication of the advertisement or at a later stage of final consideration/approval.

2. Whether the enforcement of the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 nullifies a selection process already initiated via advertisement under the previous law.

3. Whether the writ petition filed by a Treasurer of a time-barred Committee of Management without impleading selected candidates is maintainable.

The principle that recruitment begins with the advertisement and "rules of the game" cannot be changed thereafter.

Section 31 of the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 regarding "Repeal and Savings" to protect ongoing processes.

The necessity of impleading successful candidates as parties to a challenge against their selection.

The definition of a "person aggrieved" for the purposes of locus standi in writ jurisdiction.

The court reasoned that once a recruitment process is initiated through a valid advertisement following due permission, it creates a protected legal pathway.

Because the advertisements (08.08.2023) preceded the notification of the Act, 2023 (21.08.2023), the Court held that the old rules governed the process pursuant to the principles in Tej Prakash Pathak.

The Court noted that under Section 31(11)(c) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, there was a "deemed approval" of appointments when the Vice-Chancellor failed to act within the stipulated time, which was later formalized by an express approval order.

The Court distinguished other precedents like Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat (2026) and Rachna Hills (2023) as they dealt with different factual matrices such as waitlist recommendations or amendments without saving clauses.

The Court criticized the petitioner's failure to implead the selected candidates, noting that such a defect goes to the root of the case.

The Court dismissed Writ-A No. 10333 of 2025, vacated the interim orders staying the 21.04.2025 government order, and disposed of Writ-A Nos. 5941 of 2026 and 5920 of 2026, rendering orders stopping salaries and suspending approvals non-est.